Human Development Based on Morality and Freedom: background research to PowerPoint presentation

1. Principles of Human Development Based on Morality and Freedom
Allen Carn
Program: PhD in Applied Management and Decision Sciences
Specialization: Leadership and Organizational Change
August 27, 2010

2. Abstract
Breadth
In this portion of the Knowledge Area Module (KAM) 2, it was determined that Kohlberg’s
theories of moral development and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs can be applied to certain
concepts from Weber, King, Friedman, and a letter from I.R.. Specifically, the concepts include
Weber’s idea of a calling, while King’s belief in agape and the three dimensions of a full life
captures the progression aspect of Kohlberg and Maslow’s theories. Furthermore, this portion of
the KAM includes Friedman’s suggestions on how economic freedom and individual
responsibility provide an environment for human and individual development. Finally, the letter
to Bradford from I.R. provided five points on how self-reflection, continual improvement,
avoiding negative behaviors, and leadership provided the best opportunity for the group at
Plymouth Plantation to survive. All of concepts noted fit in to different portions of Kohlberg and
Maslow’s theories.

3. Abstract
Depth
The focus of the depth was to review moral development as it related to the individual, the
organization, and then leadership. Using a collaboration of inputs gathered from various authors
found in the breadth and the depth, two prevalent themes became abundantly clear. The first, in
what King would define as secular relativism, authors often proposed an adaptive moral
relativism system that required strict adherence with little or no concern for the individual. The
value of the research articles often left the reader traversing in the ambiguity of relativism that
found a way excuse some Machiavellian concepts. The second theme had a strict foundation that
provided a consistency of purpose while individualistic change was encouraged and expected.
This second theme based on utilitarian need and religious principles; virtue, enlightenment, and
individual development were prized societal expectations. As the individual developed, the moral
frame widens while the ethical blind spots decreased. Consequently, as the individual developed
so did humanity.

4. Abstract
Application
In the application portion of this KAM, the process of assembling an initial set of social
expectations begins. Theoretical information from the breadth and depth provided a path of
rediscovery to instruct undergraduate students and leaders on how certain societal expectations
provide the best opportunity for individual and leadership development. It was determined that
the social expectations lead to moral development included: the Ten Commandments; the topics
within I.R.’s letter; agape; the three dimensions of complete life; individual responsibility;
economic freedom; and a concept of virtue provide the best opportunity for development.
Furthermore, within each section, topics and training scenarios were installed to assist the student
or leader to understand the importance of moral development principles.

5. Table of Contents
Breadth .............................................................................................................................................1
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1
A Foundation of Individual Development .................................................................................1
The Impediments of Development .............................................................................................3
Decaying social expectations. ..............................................................................................3
Ignorance and hate. ..............................................................................................................5
Systems of hate. ...................................................................................................................7
The Engine of Individual Development ...............................................................................9
I.R.’s Letter of Development ...................................................................................................12
Daily self-reflection. ..........................................................................................................12
Patience & forgiveness.......................................................................................................14
Avoid a dependence on charity. .........................................................................................15
Avoid apathy and complacency. ........................................................................................16
Sound leadership and its selection. ....................................................................................18
King’s Belief in Agape as a Key to Development ...................................................................21
King’s Development Process – the three dimensions of a complete life .................................23
Length dimension. ..............................................................................................................24
Breadth dimension. ............................................................................................................25
Height dimension. ..............................................................................................................26
Friedman’s Theories that Promote Individual Development ...................................................28
Individual responsibility. ...................................................................................................29
Economic freedom. ............................................................................................................32
i

6. Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................36
Depth ............................................................................................................................................38
Leadership in Human Development ..............................................................................................38
Annotated Bibliography ...........................................................................................................38
Literature Review Essay ..........................................................................................................60
Theory ................................................................................................................................62
Organizational ....................................................................................................................72
Leadership ..........................................................................................................................81
Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................92
Application .....................................................................................................................................95
Rediscovering a Path to Human Development ..............................................................................95
Context ...........................................................................................................................................95
Social Setting ...........................................................................................................................95
Audience ..................................................................................................................................96
Objectives ................................................................................................................................97
Research Process ......................................................................................................................99
Analysis ..................................................................................................................................101
Presentation: Rediscovering a Path to Human Development ......................................................102
Presentation ............................................................................................................................102
Waypoints ..............................................................................................................................103
First waypoint. .................................................................................................................103
Second waypoint. .............................................................................................................104
Third waypoint. ................................................................................................................104
ii

7. Fourth waypoint. ..............................................................................................................105
Fifth waypoint. .................................................................................................................105
Sixth waypoint. ................................................................................................................106
Summary and Concluding Remarks ............................................................................................107
Observations ..........................................................................................................................107
Lesson Learned ......................................................................................................................108
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................109
References ....................................................................................................................................110
iii

8. 1
Breadth
SBSF 8210 Theories of Human Development
Introduction
The development of the breadth starts with Kohlberg and Maslow’s belief that human
development occurs only through individual development. The individual has always been the
basic building block of humanity; consequently, as individuals develop, humanity as a whole
benefits. However, Weber, King, and Friedman were specific in identifying four impediments to
individual development that carry over and impede human development to the point where
humanity as a whole regresses. These impediments were decaying social expectations, ignorance,
hate, and systems of hate. If an individual decided to work through the impediments, then several
concepts highlighted in the breadth provided a path of individual development. The concepts
found in the breadth included the concept of a calling, ideas noted in a letter written to Bradford,
agape, the three dimensions of a full life, individual responsibility, and economic freedom.
Kohlberg’s theory of moral development and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs provided the
analytical theory to compare and contrast the concepts previously noted. The breadth ends with a
brief conclusion that encapsulates the findings found throughout this portion of the KAM.
A Foundation of Individual Development
In the United States, Judeo-Christian beliefs provided a foundation for individual
development. This environment of potentially positive interaction based on Judeo-Christian
religious beliefs was what Weber wrote about in his book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
Capitalism (1958). However, the deterioration of those same Judeo-Christian beliefs concerned
Weber; consequently, he named capitalism as the main culprit causing the erosion of morality
leading to a regression in individual development. Unbeknownst to Weber, Marxist societal

9. 2
concepts have hastened the natural erosion process as defined by Weber. This purposeful intent
to undermine the morality, values, and ethics of a free society has individuals focusing on their
most basic needs while being forced to ignore their potential to develop. According to King, it is
those same unapologetic Marxists who have forced individuals “to go back and rediscover some
mighty precious values [they] left behind” (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998, p. 7). As
validated by Kohlberg and Maslow, all four supporting theorists, who include I.R., Weber, King,
and Friedman, have promoted individual development and believed in political freedom. While
I.R., Weber, and Friedman understood political and economic freedom were intertwined and
necessary for individual development (Friedman, 1980). King (as cited by Carson & Holloran,
1988) preferred limited economic freedom; however, he still understood that economic freedom
was a necessity and that socialism robbed the individual of the traits that made him or her human.
To King, Marxism and its variants turned an inspired individual into a hopeless subhuman. This
dismal reality forced the individual to the lowest levels of Kohlberg and Maslow’s stages of
human development and hierarchy of needs.
The breadth portion of this paper will validate some key concepts of Weber, an author
known only as I.R., King, and Friedman. In doing so the reader will understand why a calling is
the engine for individual human development. They will understand why self-improvement is
critical in allowing an individual to survive and adapt to a hostile environment. Furthermore, they
will understand the meaning of agape and the three dimensions of a complete life. Finally, in
creating an environment for individual development, the reader will understand the need for
individual responsibility and the free market. The free market is societal in nature, but it is
profoundly dependent on individual development. Combined, these authors described important
concepts that make up the societal expectations of a free society; thereby, allowing for true

10. 3
human development while keeping the impediments to development at bay. The next portion of
the breadth will note four impediments to individual development that King, Kohlberg, Maslow,
Weber, and Friedman wove into the theories and concepts.
The Impediments of Development
In reviewing the impediments of individual development, the reader must go back and
find out why so many individuals have become enamored with a system that restricts individual
development to the point that it can only lead the individual to Marxism’s version of slavery and
the elimination of individual development. The list of impediments has societal ingredients that
must be included in this topic of discussion. The impediments noted by all of the authors in this
KAM address the erosion of societal expectations, which becomes the breeding ground for
ignorance; this in turn allows hatred and systems of hate to promote class warfare. Consequently,
segments of the public have sponsored or promoted some of the impediments that were societal
in nature. This brief list was an attempt in explaining some of the issues the individual must
overcome in order to develop in a positive manner. Individuals in a constant pursuit of
development were society’s only preventive maintenance measure against societal and moral
decay.
Decaying social expectations. As Weber (1958) suggested, abundance and selfishness
were the first steps that encouraged individuals down the path of self-enslavement because they
ended up discarding the social expectations of morality, virtue, ethics, and continual
improvement that has allowed individual and human development to occur in the past. This self-
inflicted societal decay was due to members of society viewing some of the previously noted
social expectations as being antiquated, too demanding, or too restrictive in a free market setting.
Maslow (1971) with Weber believed that an unappreciated abundance created a relaxed

11. 4
atmosphere where the individual forgets the reasoning behind societal fundamentals. In the
context of what were the fears of Weber (1958) and the predatory nature of capitalism, the
erosion of religious morality begins when a profit or bonus excuses an individual or corporation
from doing what has been morally right. This predatory or materialistic nature limits the
individual development to his or her most selfish of needs. As noted in Maslow’s Hierarchy of
Needs (1943), these same individuals would struggle with esteem, loving, and belonging because
they never get past the selfish needs of physiological and safety.
Weber (1958) lamented about the deteriorating social expectations in the nineteenth and
early twentieth century. However, Weber’s perspective was more on the church and its system of
social expectations. Though potentially useful to individual development, some individuals
viewed morality, virtue, ethics, and the discipline in continual improvement as being too
restrictive to their development and freedom, which brought about certain hostility towards the
church (Weber). Again, some of this hostility was not necessarily directed at the moral and
ethical system, but at those individuals who inserted themselves as the moral and ethical arbiters
of the church; thereby, making themselves the local dictators. In their religious zeal, they ended
up restricting individual development and freedom. Regardless, the power of economic and
political freedom had turned upon itself and in doing so; individuals began to doubt the moral
foundation that had provided them so much opportunity. In King’s (as cited by Carson &
Holloran, 1998) worldview, we as a people without thinking decided to discard morality, ethics,
and virtue (p. 16). Consequently, this has lead to instances and periods of tragic exploitation.
Whether the erosion that negatively affected individual development occurred as a revolt
against the Judeo-Christian system of social expectations, the church itself, individuals within the
church, or due to the less than ethical opportunist, it happened. King, Weber, Kohlberg, and

12. 5
Maslow asserted that the degradation of societal expectations, which includes morality, virtue,
ethics, and the discipline in continual improvement, leads to a reduction in individual and human
development. Ultimately, this requires subsequent generations of individuals to rediscover, some
if not all of the lessons learned the hard way as they meander through the lower levels of
Kohlberg’s and Maslow’s development hierarchies in search of stable societal expectations.
Ignorance and hate. According to Maslow (1971), the erosion of positive social
expectations leads the individual to commit one of the most costly mistakes in regards to human
development, that mistake was ignorance. Maslow actually equated ignorance with evil. For
example, King (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998) noted that when 250 million individuals
fail to understand the source of their individual development and freedom, democracy and the
human potential for good suffers. As this relates to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (1943), this
means individuals stagnate at the lower levels of development and struggle to survive. Friedman
(2002) knew ignorance was where the enemy from within resided that has been destroying
freedom and the environment for individual development. If we as individuals, accept the
responsibility found in Kohlberg and Maslow’s higher stages of development, then we must
reject ignorance in all of its forms, this includes apathy and complacency as noted in I.R.’s
warning to Bradford (1966).
If not, individuals will lose their freedom to develop (Friedman & Friedman, 1980).
Simply, refusing to accept self-improvement as an individual responsibility equates to a loss of
freedom, which in turn imposes more restrictions on the individual development of future
generations. Ignorance prevents the incorrectly assumed to go unchecked, the wrongs of the
world to go uncorrected; consequently, individual development strays down dark paths that end
up hindering human development (Maslow, 1971). This dire path was supported by Friedman’s

13. 6
(2002, p. 7) assertion that there was a tendency to control the free market using democratic
socialism, which in turn only leads to totalitarianism.
Furthermore, ignorance, according to Maslow (1971), is one of the primary factors
leading to hatred and systems of hate. King (1988) mentioned that the last two centuries have
seen humankind being plagued with hatred and the theology of Marxism. When these two
plagues upon humanity gain strength, freedom and human development have always suffered
(King, 1986). This in turn makes hate and Marxism pitfalls of individual development. In using
the examples provided by King (1981, 1986, 1988, 1998) and Maslow (1971), a compilation of
thoughts help define hate as the complete absence of compassion with a focused negative
activity; it goes beyond indifference because of its purposeful intent. For Maslow (1971), as
previously stated, hate and evil were the manifestations of ignorance; while Kohlberg (1981)
viewed hate as the absence of “respect for persons and of justice” (p. 193). As stated by King (as
cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998), hate is more than just a single act; it is a series of acts leading
to a compulsive reaction.
More times than not, the reaction to a perceived wrong becomes a hate-filled response to
exact a certain amount of revenge. When “hate begets hate” (King, as cited by Carson &
Holloran, 1998, p. 51) the individual has lost sight of their future and individual development is
on hold. King would go on and explain that the horrific quality that hate brings out is that right
becomes wrong and what was wrong is now right. Ultimately, to break the chain reaction of hate
requires a morally and ethically strong person that believes in the value of the greater good.
Maslow would label that individual as a self-actualizing person focused on Kohlberg’s morally
right conclusions. Consequently, both Kohlberg and Maslow emphasized, hate in its various
manifestations would either suppress or cause the regression of human development.

14. 7
Systems of hate. As King (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998) preached and wrote
about, hate becomes the perfect environment for class warfare and systems of hate such as
Marxism since class warfare begets class warfare. This is not surprising since the individuals
propagating class warfare view humans as nothing more than animals. Animals do not have
moral or ethical codes worthy for those who classify themselves as intellectually superior;
consequently, societal expectations have always been a minor inconvenience to those who tread
upon the freedoms of others (King, 1981, 1988). Marx (Marx & Engels, 1959; Marx, 1970), who
often ridiculed traditional moral ethos, would approve of suppressing human development for the
greater good of the controlling central agency. Kohlberg (1981) would disagree, this Marxist
relativism or any philosophies based relativism, distort right and wrong as to prevent any
absolutes, this opens the door for an individual to excuse egregious acts. When moral relativism
serves as a foundation of a socio-economic system, the excusal of egregious acts becomes
systematic and its offspring will always be hate-based systems (King, as cited by Carson &
Holloran, 1998). Friedman (2002) would go as far as to say that equalized output and social
justice are examples of hate-based systems because they elevate one individual over another and
in some instances take from one to give to another. In these instances, individual and human
development suffers since the emphasis is on a specific group and not society as a whole.
Despite this, King (1981) decried that those individuals trapped in the cycle of hate fall
prey to the false hopes propagated by those who promote equalized outcomes and social justice.
King (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998) predicted the possibility that negative consequences
befall any who seek vengeful retribution, too often the only thing they end up promoting was
more hate. According to Friedman (2002), social vengeance ultimately opens the door to
Marxism and its variants that include Fascism, Socialism, and Communism, all of which

15. 8
equalized the output of every individual. As King noted (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998, p.
29), life’s problems have never been solved when an individual cannot tell right from wrong as
happens in “ethical relativism” which serves as the foundation of Fascism, Socialism,
Communism, and Marxism. Anyone who is in search of individual development should reject it
since it only offers the illusion of political freedom and individual development, but not the
means to attain and maintain them (King, 1981 & 1986; Friedman, 2002). Even in the best of
situations, Marxism only allows an individual to develop in a manner that strengthens the central
planning system; why else would a central planning unit invest resources on individuals (Marx &
Engels, 1959). The Marxist-like systems of hate have always ran contrary to the basic essence of
individual development, which is human nature and humankind’s desire to improve their
economic and political status while having some control over their life’s direction (Friedman,
2002).
As systems of hate build, the moral development of the individual will always focus on
revenge, retribution, and reparation, which dooms the individual to Kohlberg’s (1981) lowest
stages. Consequently, the needs of the individual will only advance as far as the desire that
carries the individual concerning a specific cause based on revenge, retribution, or reparation
(Maslow, 1943). As previously stated, the spin cycle of hate ensnares individual and human
development, since hate begets hate, more equalized output begets more equalization, while
more social justice begets more perceived social inequity, which ultimately leads to class
warfare, and in turn leads to Marx’s never ending class struggle (Marx & Engels, 1959).
These impediments of freedom and individual development require constant diligence of
all individuals. King (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998) tried to dissuade individuals from
choosing the path of hate and ignorance, because he knew they were actually making a decision

16. 9
that would prevent them from developing to their fullest potential. In turn, they would put
themselves in a poor position to succeed while being seduced by illusions of grandeur offered by
systems of hate. King would go further and state that the act of embracing hate would condemn
future generations to levels of greater inequity and hate. Maslow (1971) stressed that in order to
stop these impediments from being successful requires as many individuals as possible striving
to achieve the highest levels of human development. That means everyone must be inspired to
achieve the highest possible need (Maslow, 1943) or stage of moral development (Kohlberg,
1981), for all humanity is dependent upon it. The concepts and theories found in the next sections
will offset the impediments of development. In doing so, some of the impediments noted may
take on a different persona than previously noted.
The Engine of Individual Development
Oppression and subjugation has been the dominate condition for most of humanity, as a
few decide the future of the many. Before the most recent age of enlightenment, freedom was an
ancient relic of Greece or early Rome. According to Friedman (Friedman & Friedman, 1980),
most of the people of that era understood political freedom and economic freedom were
synonymous and one could not exist without the other. However, that did not persuade some
from thinking otherwise. Bradford (1908; Bradford & Winslow, 1966) would criticize those who
thought they knew better or had some divine right to push aside freedom and assert brutal control
over the rest of humanity. As a result, human and individual development crept backwards into
the dark ages. Fortunately, the concept of freedom secured a foothold initially in Great Britain.
Freedom would eventually take root in the New World leading Charles Adams to coin an
expression describing this as the American Experiment. Eventually, the American Experiment
would become the subject of Weber’s work as he wrote the Protestant Ethic and developed the

17. 10
concept of a calling. A calling was just one of many steps an individual takes to rediscover the
path of moral development and freedom.
As Weber (1958) compiled his research on the Protestants, he discovered a concept so
powerful that once discovered by the individual, they should pursue it with all their might as if it
unlocked the door to all of life’s problems. If pursued, to a certain degree, a calling would answer
so many of life’s questions because it is the engine of individual development. In Weber’s
opinion, the individual should maximize their time in a utilitarian pursuit of a calling for it could
provide mental, spiritual, and physical nourishment. Furthermore, Weber described a calling in
many ways: a life’s passion, performing a current vocation in the best possible manner, a
professional higher plane of awareness, or a selfless commitment to duty in which life’s rewards
could be either spiritual or monetary. Maslow (1971) equated the pursuit of a calling as being
values, which drive the individual to seek out the peak experiences that make up self-
actualization. In any case, Weber (1958) asserted that once an individual has found their calling
and chooses not to pursue it; it was sinful if the individual wasted the gifts provided to him or
her. King (1988) suggested that once discovered the individual should pursue a calling as if it
was his or her destiny; as if, the preordained individual had some divine right that elevated him
or her to pursue something historically significant. Even more so, King mentioned that no matter
whatever an individual’s calling might be, be it big or small, pursue it in a manner that makes
him or her the best at it no matter what it was. Whether it was being a street cleaner, janitor,
teacher, lawyer, businessperson, or whatever, just be the best at it.
According to King (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998), freedom is the most important
ingredient for an individual to decide on what their calling is because it is their inalienable right.
Freedom allows the individual the opportunity to pursue anything that society allows. According

18. 11
to Friedman (Friedman & Friedman, 1980), the United States government does not have rights;
consequently, selecting an individual’s vocation is not one of them. To do so would require the
individual to surrender something that this nation’s founders never intended. Friedman (2002)
would go on to say that many Marxists and elitists’ believe a strong central planning unit should
decide for each individual what their future holds for them in regards to many things and an
individual’s vocation is definitely one of them. How else can any central planning system run
efficiently if it does not have pre-selected or groomed individuals to fill less than desirable
vacancies?
In regards to an individual being afraid of pursuing a calling, Maslow (1971) asserted that
some individuals go through life seeking normalcy and averageness limiting their future
development to Kohlberg and Maslow’s lower levels. These individuals have a tendency to
despise others who over-achieve or appear successful. Some of these individuals have become
fearful of their own potential. Friedman (2002) would add that the rest of us who want to be
more and achieve higher levels of development, normalcy and averageness were unacceptable.
Failure or a search for the potentially unattainable is an acceptable risk.
Friedman (1980, p. 128) wrote when the founding fathers talked of equality and liberty,
they meant the equality of opportunity. The only consistent roadblock to the equality of
opportunity in searching for a calling has been government or some type of ruling class
(Friedman, 2002). King (1986) would have agreed while adding a warning about systems of hate.
When a government over-regulates economic freedom, it means less opportunity for all and less
opportunity for an individual to develop and find his or her calling (Friedman, 2002).
Furthermore, it impedes a large portion of our population in developing as they see fit in order to
achieve higher levels of development. King (1986) attested, to impede the burning desire for one

19. 12
individual to find their true vocation was to do so to the detriment of society’s future. The best
advances in society came from those individuals who were inspired, by whatever reasons, to be
more as they pursued their calling. Weber (1958) agreed while suggesting that the inverse of that
statement was true as well, not to pursue a calling was unhealthy, for society as well as the
individual. An unhealthy society was one that restricts individual and human development.
I.R.’s Letter of Development
In speaking of individual development in a small group setting, William Bradford
received a unique and profoundly astute letter from George Morton’s friend who signed the letter
only as I.R. The letter must have been extremely influential since it survived the voyage, the lean
years of the early settlement, and the years following the success of the Plymouth Plantation. The
title of the letter in Bradford and Winslow’s (1966) journal was simple; it was a Letter of Advice
to the Planters of New-England. The title was an understated label for something that was highly
profound. Its suggestions offered sound advice to Bradford and his followers on how they should
conduct themselves, how they should interact amongst each other, and how they should act as
leaders, to name a few. In short, it was a letter of advice on individual and human development.
The letter incorporated five distinct points that focused on the topics of individual and leadership
development.
Daily self-reflection. The first point the letter made suggested that the individuals of
Plymouth were to reflect daily upon their actions and repent when necessary (Bradford &
Winslow, 1966, p. B2). The repentance I.R. spoke of was referencing God; however, if an
individual looks past the religious context and just at the intent of the suggestion, the individual
should look upon this as an inward reflection upon their actions throughout the day. Despite the
erosion of social expectations of today (Friedman, 2002), according to Maslow (1971),

20. 13
individuals should have a general understanding on how they would want to be treated by other
individuals in society. If any individual would reflect upon their actions throughout the day in the
context of how they would want to be treated, they would find good deeds and some that have an
opportunity for improvement. King (1986), Kohlberg (1943), and Maslow (1971) all made
references to the Golden Rule, the Good Samaritan, or the Ethic of Reciprocity, which draws
parallels to this point. I.R. must have known that the planters and adventurers would face trying
times that would push them to the limits of their group’s social expectations and they may have
days were they did not live up to those expectations.
King (1981) supported this assumption as he wrote and spoke about the Good Samaritan.
However, he knew that no one could live up to the standard set forth in his belief of the Good
Samaritan all of the time. King just wanted individuals to go from “passive commitment to active
participation” in being a Good Samaritan (p. 18). Active participation required the attempt and
the commitment to do what was right. King (1986) went further to suggest that active
participation in self-reflection required the attempt to improve oneself. Conversely, King defined
negative or passive commitment as “tokenism” (p. 51); moreover, it never does anything to
encourage positive active participation. An individual’s inward reflection would allow them to
see the opportunities for improvement in earning and giving respect. Furthermore, King (1986)
suggested that a daily reflection upon one’s deeds would reveal the true potential in the human
spirit and thereby unlocking the potential for continual individual and human development. In the
extreme situations facing the planters and adventures, individual and societal improvement was
necessary for survival. Kohlberg (1981) viewed this as a method that takes the individual from
self-interest orientation to interpersonal concordance orientation. For Maslow (1943), this point

21. 14
takes the individual from the loving and belonging stage to the esteem stage because it not only
aided in developing friendships, it promoted respect of and by others.
Patience & forgiveness. The second point made in the letter was patience and
forgiveness. Daily self-reflection, practicing patience, and bestowing forgiveness were similar
since they required introspection. However, patience and forgiveness comes into play if the
individual offends or continually irritates another. Patience and forgiveness required the
individual to be diligent in practicing their faith while promoting unity within the group when
those situations occurred (Bradford & Winslow, 1966). In a small group, facing potentially
deadly situations that the planters and adventures of Plymouth found themselves in almost daily,
not giving or taking offense was critical in dealing with stressful situations. Maslow (1971)
warned, if they did, the group cooperation would have dissolved into bitter infighting, individual
development regresses where the individual focuses on the most basic needs and motivation. The
members of the group become more concerned with retribution or reparation while focusing on
lower level needs.
King (1981) had an expression for this, “the old eye-for-an-eye philosophy would leave
everyone blind” (p. 42). King could have coached the people of Plymouth by reminding them
they could not “overcome evil with evil” (p. 42) they had to “overcome evil with good” (p. 42).
When the people of Plymouth first set foot in the New World, a small Indian scout party fired
arrows at them (Bradford & Winslow, 1966). If the adventurers had attacked aggressively in the
next encounters, they would have lost a valuable Indian ally that provided aid and guidance.
Another example occurred when some of the Indian tribes noticed the foreigners rummaging
through their food stores and burial grounds. Had the Indians acted negatively, they would have
lost a trading partner and a valuable ally that provided protection from the other hostile tribes.

22. 15
For a modern day example of eye for an eye tactics, a person would not need to look further than
politics and gang activity that ravage a majority of cities (Friedman & Friedman, 1980).
Individuals involved in both politics and gang activity fail to heed King’s (1981) warning and
look to establish territorial control through any means possible as the ends justify the means. In
the end, the losers will always be the ones caught in the middle while the titles of aggressor and
victim become interchangeable. Kohlberg (1981) stressed that no individual can develop in a
positive manner while trying to survive in that type of environment. Guiding the people of
Plymouth from this dismal potential reality was I.R.’s intention (Bradford & Winslow, 1966).
This point was more of a preventive measure in order to keep the individual focused on
improvement and the positive. If the individual were making any improvement in regards to self-
reflection, patience and forgiveness would deter the individual from becoming petty and
regressing downward in Kohlberg and Maslow’s hierarchies.
Avoid a dependence on charity. The previous sections, self-reflection and patience,
helped the individual to avoid a hasty and hateful response that would destroy group unity. The
letter’s third point focuses on dependence and the wasted efforts of those seeking retribution or
reparations (Bradford & Winslow, 1966, p. B2). This point goes on to explain that any persons
seeking charity for petty or fabricated transgressions were “gross and hypocrites” (p. B3). As
important, those who take and give offense easily have proven to be unreliable and influence the
development of others negatively. Finally, this section was specific in its intent; the goal was to
make everyone in a society productive, especially when the group’s survival is in question.
Maslow (1971) concurred, not only have the questionable victims wasted their resources in
complaining and halting their development, they have wasted the resources and the potential
development of others trying to resolve their need. Another negative according to Maslow was

23. 16
that continual complaining breaks down group unity; it even drains the energy of those not
involved in the transgression, thus limiting their development.
King (1981) was weary of those expecting charitable handouts of others; it reduced their
dignity and individualism to the point where darkness surrounds them. As a society declines, its
combined dire need will increase, resources will become limited making I.R. suggestions more
poignant as those trapped in the darkness as previously described by King will waste time and
resources following false hopes peddled by charlatans. Humanity cannot develop if it wastes time
with its hands out instead of having its hands being productive and useful. Only the light of
knowledge, love, and firm belief in the individual can get them past their apathy, fears,
ignorance, hate, or failures. In doing so, King suggested that leaders develop a stern approach in
teaching others to handle the type of adversity previously described. Maslow and Kohlberg’s
beliefs paralleled King’s approach. If individuals constantly complain about their physiological
needs (Maslow, 1943) while being stuck in a self-interested orientation (Kohlberg, 1981), they
will never develop. The individual stuck in this rut has to make an all out effort to develop to
their fullest potential (Maslow, 1971), for their own sake as well as the group’s.
Avoid apathy and complacency. This section highlights the deadly potential of apathy
and complacency, which was the fourth point in the letter. Even though I.R. was more concerned
with planters and adventurers’ becoming lethargic after any initial gain before the Plymouth
settlement was actually self-sustaining (Bradford & Winslow, 1966), the warning transcended
time as Friedman, King, Kohlberg, and Maslow issued their own warnings. I.R. labeled apathy
and complacency as a “deadly plague” (p. B4) and it should be avoided at all cost for the general
welfare of the individual and the group.

24. 17
However, the deadly plague applies to well-established individuals and societies, since
apathy suggests stagnated or regressed human development. The source that feeds apathy and
complacency according to Kohlberg (1981) was ignorance. Furthermore, ignorance, apathy, and
complacency formed a cycle of self-destruction. Maslow (1971) suggested to break the cycle
required the light of knowledge, which was the ultimate driving force that anyone searching for
positive individual and human development can take from this point.
Unfortunately, King (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998) and Friedman (2002)
complained that most public schools fail to teach economic freedom survival techniques to get
individuals to set goals that included higher levels of development. By failing to address the
needs of the students in order to survive in a free society, Maslow (1943) pointed out that not
having the information and thereby economic means to secure physiological and safety related
needs, the individual would have a difficult time to consistently achieve love, esteem, and even
self-actualization needs. By ignoring these techniques, public school systems have denied
historical knowledge, a concept of self-reliance, competitive spirit, and the understanding that
economic freedom is a part of political freedom to many Americans (King, 1986 & 1998).
Friedman (2002) warned that a failure to educate individuals in a society allows them to become
complacent and apathetic with the moral relativist issues of forced diversity, social justice, and
equalized outcome. So much so, that the individuals no longer believe in themselves, have will
power, or have the mental tools to succeed (Friedman).
Kohlberg (1981) added that the combination of degrading moral boundaries and the
ignorance fostered by a failed education system condemns the majority of individuals to
Kohlberg’s obedience and punishment orientation. Without knowledge and the understanding of
right and wrong, the individual fails to understand the dire-nature of their situation, the

25. 18
incremental changes that restrict individual development goes unnoticed. Like the frog
swimming in the proverbial pot of hot water, it never realizes the slow but steady increase in
temperature. Like the frog, the individual never realizes the deadly nature of the situation until it
is too late. This was why complacency and apathy were not only a deadly plague to the survival
of the people of Plymouth Plantation, but they have always been a plague to individual
development. Maslow (1971) emphasized that complacency and apathy allowed the majority to
believe in delusional concepts of normalcy and averageness; as a result, they find it morally
justifiable to hinder the individual achievement of the over achievers. Lastly, complacency and
apathy feed the Jonah Complex in which they become afraid of their own potential;
consequently, they stop developing and seek to hinder the development of others.
Sound leadership and its selection. The final point in I.R.’s letter referred to leadership
in the context of human development (Bradford & Winslow, 1966). It has phrases and notions
such as, letting “wisdom and godliness” (p. B5) aid in the selection of leaders that promote the
common good. In order to promote the common good, leaders should know the moral application
of duty, honor, and obedience in the administration of all laws and ordinances. Finally, leaders
should promote the common good even if it means going against the “foolish multitude” (p. B5)
enamored with the trivialities of life that lead to complacency and apathy.
There were two critical items concerning this point. The first critical item was the masses
needing to select a leader who had unquestionable integrity and honor with a proven track of
obeying the agreed upon laws and social expectations (Bradford & Winslow, 1966). In doing so,
selected leaders should promote the common good of all people and the only way to accomplish
that feat was through the promotion of economic and political freedom (Friedman, 2002). As
soon as a leader promoted one class, race, gender, or any other societal division, they have failed

26. 19
to honor the general common good of all individuals. This travesty of leadership ends up
selectively hindering the human development of targeted individuals via economic and political
regulations; furthermore, the benefactors become developmentally hindered as systems of
dependency force individuals to become complacent and apathetic. Punitive regulation punishes
instead of inspiring individuals to reach their potential.
The second critical item stems from the personality traits of the leader. The leader must
prove that he or she is more than capable in administering the laws and ordinances on all people,
including themselves. As soon as a leader creates a set of laws or social expectations that are no
longer in line with a society’s, the leader is no longer of the people for the people (Bradford &
Winslow, 1966). Friedman (2002) stated that they have separated themselves as a class through
the misuse of the power of the people. This mimics the irony of socialism as it supposedly strives
to achieve a classless society; yet, as soon as the revolutionary party creates a strong central
planning unit it has already established a ruling class. According to Friedman, this meant that
human development would begin to slow to a crawl, stagnate, and then regress under totalitarian
rule. As King (1986) cautioned, we have reached a critical point in maintaining and reclaiming
lost freedom. This encouraged King to make a call to arms for all individuals that believed they
could be leaders that were prudent, judicious, humane, and have a highly developed
understanding of integrity. We do not need leaders caught up in the rapture of power while
promoting the deadly sins of pride, envy, gluttony, lust, anger, greed, and sloth. The emphasis
here, holistic human development can only be achieved in a society that promotes both economic
and political freedom and our society has been in desperate need of leaders who understood that
simple premise.

27. 20
In total, what this point referred to in Kohlberg’s theory of development (1981), an
individual or leader can generate ideas on several different levels of development. An individual
or leader should aspire to make decisions or generate ideas consistently at the highest levels of
development. In addition, leaders who can operate at the highest levels of Maslow’s (1943) needs
can provide the grounded guidance that a society made up of individuals striving for individual
development requires. Society should avoid elevating individuals who cannot perform
consistently at these higher levels (Friedman, 2002). This need becomes more evident as a
society calls upon a selected leader to stop the public or any portion of it from self-destruction
(King, 1986).
I.R. wrote this letter of advice to a group of planters and adventurers who were going to
set sail for the New World with an understanding that they would have to endure and overcome
numerous obstacles (Bradford & Winslow, 1966). Even though their situation required them to
improvise, adapt, and overcome numerous impediments, they never lost sight of the
fundamentals and insights of individual development concepts captured in this letter of advice
(Bradford & Winslow). Similar to planters and adventures of Plymouth, Kohlberg (1981) and
Maslow (1971) declared, when a group of individuals aspiring to develop on an individual basis
prospers, the group prospers and the potential of this group would be unlimited.
As planters and adventurers of Plymouth prospered, they rediscovered some basic
principles of human development. According to King, the first was freedom; the next was a
common understanding of the moral foundation (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998, p. 10).
The final point of I.R.’s letter highlighted the importance of principled leadership. I.R. was
explicit in that a leader has to understand that he or she is a servant of the people and not the
other way around. King (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998) confirmed I.R.’s assertion by

28. 21
writing, those that lead must serve those that follow. As evidence of the eventual success at
Plymouth, when the Pilgrims unleashed their potential as I.R. suggested, only then did they
achieve sustainable success and individual development.
King’s Belief in Agape as a Key to Development
The process in which an individual overcomes personal and systematic hate was a general
theme found in many of King’s speeches, sermons, and books. His belief was in love; in
addition, love was the only way to stop hate and the socio-economic systems that perpetuate hate
(King, 1981, p. 120). King (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998) even noted love as being a cure
for the most self-absorbed individual or country because it forces the individual to realize that the
world does not exist to fulfill their needs alone. According to King (1981), love in its various
forms has been the foundation of a group of individuals wanting to get along so they can prosper
and proliferate together. From love, humanity develops moral expectations so individuals can
interact without slaughtering one another. Only then do individuals have a chance to develop,
since inspired individuals working together realize most of Maslow’s (1943) basic needs more
efficiently. These basic needs include food, safety, housing, and a method of cooperation. This in
turn satisfies the requirements of Kohlberg’s (1981) first two levels of moral development while
providing fertile ground for individuals to develop the third level of moral development, which
includes “social contract” and “universal ethical principle” orientations (pp. 19-20).
When King (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998) spoke of love, he did not mean it to
indicate the love found in an affectionate relationship or the lust of a one-night stand. He meant it
in a neighborly way, as in one fellow human being or entity helping another, in the same manner
as the ancient Greeks would define agape. Furthermore, agape becomes integral part of his three
dimensions of a complete life, this interaction will be explained in the following paragraphs.

29. 22
Together, agape and the three dimensions of a complete life provide excellent examples of social
expectations that can inspire individual development and beat back the hate that can envelop the
individual causing him or her to regress.
Agape was one of a few different definitions that the Greeks used to define love (King, as
cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998). Agape was a “disinterested love” (King, 1986, p. 19) and the
level of interaction between individuals was somewhere between friendship and the general
concern for an unknown person. For Maslow (1971) and King (1986), a heightened sense of
humanity or agape was a part of the invisible hand that bound people together if only for the
reason that they were in need. It is to care for someone when there is no benefit to the person
giving aid; it does not look at an individual in need and then discriminate between skin color,
their wealth, and social status. King described agape as a neighborly love that expects any
individual to treat complete strangers with the same respect and dignity as they would any
neighbor that they liked. As in bible story about the Good Samaritan, this enhanced King’s
concept of agape. For Kohlberg (1981) and Maslow (1971), agape was an example of the Golden
Rule or the Ethic of Reciprocity.
For agape to function properly, an individual needs to develop inner love for them self,
King (1981) expected the individual not to become resentful and angry because of the difficulties
of life. This will end up causing the individual to wrap him or herself up in a cloak of hate
sealing the individual off from their inner love or the rest of the world. Thus, they begin to
digress down the hierarchical development processes of Kohlberg (1981) and Maslow (1971).
This developmental retreat requires family, friends, and neighbors to promote an attitude that
never quits. To quit means the individual has now become dependent and has lost the inner love
for them self that allows them to believe that they are unique and wonderful.

30. 23
In our society, there were those who have been coaxing individuals to quit before they
even try (King, 1981). Ultimately, they become bitter and view economic freedom as evil. An
individual must resist the temptation to become angry or hate when life becomes difficult, they
must approach life with resiliency, dignity, discipline, and love (King, 1986). The absolute worst
thing an individual can do is fall prey in hating someone, because the individual surrenders their
power and control to the object of their hate. King’s last statement included the systems of hate
such as Marxism and its variants. Consistent with the theories of Kohlberg (1981) and Maslow
(1971), agape provides the energy for further individual development while serving as the
firewall to prevent hate and developmental regression.
King’s Development Process – the three dimensions of a complete life
To expand upon the concept of agape, King (1988) created an individual development
process that he explained as the three dimensions of a complete life. The three dimensions
incorporate the concept of agape and provide a further enhancement of societal expectations.
According to King, the three dimensions that each individual should aspire to attain include the
length, breadth, and height of an individual. The basis for the three dimensions comes from the
bible and specifically the scriptures of John. King deduced that according to John a full and
wonderful life needed to be “complete on all sides” (p. 40). If an individual strives to attain a
complete life, there will be no questions about his or her character, for it will be on display every
day. A complete life in many regards equates to Kohlberg’s (1981) stage six, “universal ethical
principle orientation” (p. 19), and Maslow’s (1943) “self-actualization need” (p. 382). If
individuals in a society have a similar set of expectations, then the potential for human
development becomes infinite, only limited by the imagination of the individuals.

31. 24
Length dimension. The first dimension of a complete life was what King labeled as the
“length of life” (1988, p. 40). King considered this the selfish dimension of human development
where the sole focus of the individual was on their own life in order to satisfy their lower level
needs as defined by Maslow (1943). However, the length was a necessary stepping-stone in
human development. Maslow’s thoughts ran congruent with this concept since a majority of
these needs he classified as “physiological” (p. 372) or as “safety needs” (p. 376). Without it, the
individual could not develop self-confidence, an appreciation for the natural gifts provided them,
or simply to be able to live comfortably in one’s own skin.
All previously noted needs serve as the foundation for the “love” (Maslow, 1943, p. 380)
and “esteem needs” (p. 381). Too often, individuals blessed with unimaginable ability cannot see
the wonderful uniqueness of their life, misguided by self-doubt, they second-guess themselves
and everyone else; in turn, allow ignorance to creep into their souls and contaminate their daily
activities (Maslow, 1971). When they can find the ill will in everything, they will have a difficult
time developing past the most basic of needs. This becomes the ultimate negative reality of an
individual; they eventually become land locked in hate never to embrace the ever-changing world
around them, their desire is to control it and morph it to their worldview (King, 1981).
There are those with great self-confidence and abilities, yet they never develop beyond
the length dimension, so enamored with materialistic potential of their economic freedom, they
choose to bring development to a halt (King, as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998). The deadly
plagues of apathy and complacency set in as I.R. (Bradford & Winslow, 1966) had warned about.
In the end, the length is a necessary step in human development; it offers the potential of self-
actualization by satisfying some of the most basic needs while fostering a love of the inner self.
Like any gift, it is what the individual does with it next that matters the most.

32. 25
Breadth dimension. The next dimension was the “breath of life” (King, 1988, p. 40). It
takes the individual from their self-centered reality and expands it to include the concept of agape
and the noticeable worry for others. An individual being extremely successful at the length
dimension does not make them great it only accentuates their shallowness. To expand the process
of individual and human development, the individual must understand the “the depths of human
need” (pp. 44-45). This dimension builds on the premise that every sentient being was
interconnected and that if something happens to one it has happened to us all. As mentioned in
the section on agape, a well-developed breadth has the potential to empower the individual to be
more and do more to promote positive social change. In offering unconditional aid to fellow
individuals, the breadth dimension offers some of the greatest rewards available in regards to
human development and interaction.
This dimension captures Maslow’s (1943) human motivational needs of love and esteem.
In addition, this dimension parallels Kohlberg’s developmental path that takes the individual
from “interpersonal accord and conformity” (p. 18), through “authority and social-order” (p. 19)
to “social contract orientation” (p. 19). The breadth dimension expands the moral development
process of the individual.
However, the drawback to this dimension comes into play when individuals perform
deeds of sacrifice in order to promote themselves in the community. In doing so, the individual
does not develop past the length dimension, for the act of agape was done to promote them self
or as a tax write off, not to give unconditional aid. This type of aid described was what King
(1986) labeled as tokenism. This is a prop of a false leader or individual and was what I.R.
warned about in his letter to Bradford (1966). Tokenism has been on display for sometime in
American politics, when self-interest and promotion lead to dishonesty, corruption, and cronyism

33. 26
the result has been societal decay (King, 1986). Tokenism denotes the failure of individual in
progressing out of the length dimension. When token leaders get away with token acts, individual
and human development suffers.
Fortunately, King’s (1986) belief in agape and selfless acts that make up the breadth
dimension propagate in our society every day, but good deeds usually do not make the headlines
in the evening news as an example for others. Even when people do accomplish good deeds that
make the news, a doubt exists that the deed was one as an act of self-promotion as King noted in
his sermon about the “drum major instinct” (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998, p. 166). For
the individual, to understand the difference between doing a good deed for the sake of doing it or
doing a good deed as an act of self-promotion falls under Kohlberg’s (1981) idea of a “principled
conscience” (p.20). King addressed this level of self-understanding and consciousness in the
height dimension.
Height dimension. The final dimension of a complete life was called the height and “the
height of life is the upward reach for God” (King, 1988, p. 40). King (1988) believed that an
individual’s life was meaningless without spiritual redemption. He would also describe the
height of life as the dedication to pursue something greater than humanity (King, 1986). For the
spiritual person this meant that an individual should go search out the path to spiritual salvation
(King, 1988). At times, this may take the individual down the path less travelled. For the essence
of spirituality, or the absence there of, is found in everything that the individuals sees, touches,
hears, or has faith in. It is faith that takes the individual beyond our current realm of
comprehension to a higher plane of existence (King, 1986). King (1988) saw faith as the true
opportunity in developing a height dimension.

34. 27
In a non-spiritual sense, the individual develops the inward and outward balance in their
life to attain a higher plane of existence. According to Maslow (1971), as the length and breadth
develops outward persona, the height dimension actually refers to the inner growth necessary to
counter balance the other two dimensions. Consequently, maintaining this inner balance requires
greater effort in order for the individual to continue to develop. In doing so, the non-spiritual
person develops a level of spirituality that is unique unto them self. They begin to process life
with selfless creativity and spontaneity not allowing pettiness to creep in to their thoughts
(Maslow, 1943). They function at a higher level of morality that takes them past the Ten
Commandments and any human-made legal realm to a realm where he or she understands that
human life in all of its forms is sacred (Kohlberg, 1981). The individual is predominantly
operating in the “self-actualization realm of needs” (Maslow, 1943, p. 381) while achieving the
“orientation of the universal ethical principle” (Kohlberg, 1981, p. 20). The non-religious person
is the counter balance to a society that is religious in nature.
Whether a person was religious or an atheist, the ultimate aim for the individual at higher
levels of development was to avoid the desire to fix everything in everyone’s lives. King (1988)
and Friedman (2002) would equate an individual trying to fix everything in another individual’s
life as a central controlling agency (King, 1988). This forces the individual to surrender the
capability to remain free and ultimately dooms the individual to the lower stages of development
and the secularist religions of Marxism and its variants. As with materialism, the secular
religions epitomize the absence of love and agape thereby stopping the development process.
Moreover, Weber (1958) warned about the fanatical tendencies that occur when there is an over
dependence on a central religion as well. When surrendering freedom and power to any central
controlling entity, the individual should use extreme caution (Friedman, 2002).

35. 28
That is why it is essential to "keep love at the center of our lives” (King, 1986, p. 13),
love serves as a defensive barrier against hate. Furthermore, the only way to change humanity is
to serve as an example in seeking positive individual development on a continual basis.
According to King, an individual who truly loves and practices the breadth and height
dimensions, they help by not taking away, but by inspiring others to find that inner glow that
resides within them so they can develop as they see fit. An individual should use caution when
providing materialistic needs to an individual because it robs the individual of their inner self-
love, dignity, and makes them dependent. If the individual works to develop the length, breadth,
and height effectively, the individual will maintain equal proportions of the three dimensions or
the inner and outward balance. A highly developed individual never imposes their beliefs upon
another. In doing so, they have lost the height they worked so hard to attain. They should only
encourage another individual as an aspiring mentor, with the hope that the mentor in training
discovers their own path to enlightenment. The main difference between the breadth and height,
in the breadth the individual serves as an example to relatives, neighbors, and individual
strangers. In the height dimension, the individual serves as an example to a whole society.
Friedman’s Theories that Promote Individual Development
Everything previously mentioned, the concept of a calling, I.R.’s letter to Bradford,
agape, and the three dimensions of a complete life have alluded to two of Friedman’s
fundamental necessities of individual development and building of a better society for future
generations. It was Friedman’s (2002) belief that individual responsibility and a free market
approach have historically provided the best results while providing equal opportunity for
everyone. They are the topics of discussion in this and the next section.

36. 29
Individual responsibility. In explaining the positive of individual responsibility, it
requires the individual to understand the negative first. The worst possible outcome for
individual development occurs when an intrusive entity coerces a responsible person “into
irresponsibility by his responsible love for his family” (King, 1986, p. 191). The act of coercion,
according to King, meant the individual has less economic or political freedom. For Friedman
(2002), this intrusive entity in most cases is government or the legal system, while the method of
coercion is either legislation from a congressional body or a ruling from the bench. According to
Maslow (1971), political or economic coercion forces individuals at higher stages of
development to focus on their most basic of needs while being oriented to the obedience and
punishment stage. When a government endorses and promotes irresponsibility, the individual
does not develop. They regress and become dependent (Freidman, 2002). When a government
forces productive hands into counterproductive activities it does so at the detriment of society,
this becomes the ultimate social injustice (King, 1986). Consequently, people practicing
individual responsibility while participating in a free market environment become the only means
to throw off the shackles of systematic dependency.
A morally developed person understands that individual responsibility was the same thing
as self-leadership. Self-leadership falls within the realm of Kohlberg’s (1981) fifth stage which
was the “social contract orientation” (p. 19) since the individual understands their role and social
expectations within the community and acts accordingly to maintain it. Maslow (1971) noted, as
self-leaders seek to attain their esteem needs, they display self-confidence and offer inspiration to
others. Kohlberg (1981) promoted the idea that a self-leader does not flinch when addressing
ethical problems that can occur on a daily basis. In doing so, it forces the aspiring self-leader, in
the context of moral development, to focus on what they should do to best exercise their freedom

37. 30
to improve their own and the lives of others (Friedman, 2002). In essence, if the individual wants
to practice individual responsibility and self-leadership then the individual needs to embark on a
course that takes him or her to find a calling as they exercise their economic and political
freedom (Weber, 1958).
Self-leadership and individual responsibility is all about an individual having the political
and economic freedom to plot a course of personal development while ensuring that he or she is
not encroaching upon the freedom of others (Friedman & Friedman, 1980). In other words, an
individual’s level of development is dependent on the amount of economic and political freedom
he or she enjoys while being responsible in not restricting those same freedoms for others. These
“freedom[s are] a tenable objective only for responsible individuals” (Friedman, 2002, p. 33).
Freedom requires action and the ownership of that action.
If self-leadership were about plotting a course of personal development, which has a great
potential for human development, then as I.R. (Bradford, 1908) wrote in the letter of advice that
taking ownership of one’s actions was the historical reflection of opportunities missed and
problems understood in order to avoid future reoccurrences. All of this allows to the individual to
glean information from the past to improve the future. I.R.’s belief corresponded with the beliefs
of all of the authors found in the breadth. For example, King (1986) added that the ownership of
action meant an individual has earned the results of those actions for better or for worse.
Friedman (2002) stated that personal and human development has always occurred when
individuals make their own decisions and assume responsibility of the consequences. While
Maslow (1971) declared that good and bad repercussions of action become the building blocks of
development. Finally, this ownership of action was in-line with the theories of human
development of both Kohlberg (1981) and Maslow (1971).

38. 31
Historically, individual responsibility only occurs when political and economic freedom
has prevailed (Friedman, 2002). Friedman (Friedman & Friedman, 1980) warned that the
precursor to socialism comes when a person is led to believe that he or she never does anything
wrong. In so doing, blinding them to their own need to improve and setting him or her up for hate
and class warfare (Friedman, 2002). To learn from failure can be heart wrenching at times.
However, failure in a totalitarian state is brutal (Friedman). In understanding the importance of
freedom and the consequence of personal action, King (1986) suggested that the individual
should risk everything in order to maintain and promote it. This included the ultimate example in
self-leadership, the sacrificing of one’s own life to maintain the freedom of others. King’s life
serves as an example because it incorporates everything that is necessary for an individual
striving for self-leadership, positive social change, and the ability to choose while suffering the
consequences of those actions in order to serve as an inspiration for others.
According to King (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998), when he spoke about the drum
major instinct, he mentioned that it is natural for the individual to seek a position of power,
respect, and money. A healthy society should encourage all of its citizens to maximize all of their
potential. However, a responsible person understands that an individual has to earn power,
respect, and money. If those items were undeserved, they will do irreparable harm to the
development of the individual. Friedman (Friedman & Friedman, 1980) added, to give to those
that do not deserve destroys responsibility and endangers freedom. In order to earn power,
respect, and money, it requires the individual to achieve positive societal results and have
genuine respect for the system and their fellow citizens (Friedman, 2002). Kohlberg (1981) and
Maslow (1971) believed that a complete understanding of the concept of individual
responsibility, which includes the earning of rewards, was a prerequisite to the highest stages of

39. 32
development. In summation, an individual that understands all action, both positive & negative,
requires ownership. This ownership allows the individual to grow by gaining a better
understanding of where they have been and where they need to go.
Economic freedom. It was a firm belief of Friedman (2002) that if a society was going to
prosper and develop, it needed morally responsible individuals working and developing in a free
environment unhindered by coercion. The only socio-economic system that provided both
economic and political freedom in a manner that allowed the individual to maximize their talents
and develop to their fullest potential has been a free market system (Friedman & Friedman,
1980). Furthermore, in a free market system the individual has Maslow’s (1943) lower level need
incentives built in to allow the individual to maximize their own unlimited potential as they see
fit (Friedman, 2002). This allowed the individual to traverse the first two needs quickly.
Friedman believed that the efficiency in productivity benefited everyone for the abundance
allowed the majority the opportunity to focus beyond the basic needs and strive to accomplish
greater levels of development. Since the previous was true, then it has always been through
limited government that an individual can attain the most possible freedom to accomplish higher
levels of development.
For those that might use Weber’s (1958) concern about the free market as an argument
against it, they need reminded that his concern was about individuals trying to develop and
prosper in an immoral world without ethics and virtues. Friedman (2002) warned that if a free
market, as with any freedom, exists without laws, ethics, morality, and virtue, those things that
make up social expectations, then chaos would reign and little to no individual development
would occur. However, if a socio-economic system develops with a strong central planning unit,
then the bureaucratic burden of laws, taxes, and regulations will have the same effect as chaos,

40. 33
little to no individual development (Friedman). As a result, to counter Weber’s concern from
Friedman’s perspective was a free and morally developed individual exercising his or her
economic freedom.
The unfortunate reality for the individual who hands over their personal responsibility to
a central planning concept is that a central planning unit cannot be all things to everyone;
consequently, if an individual surrenders their power of personal responsibility then the
individual will be forced to accept the limited or pre-ordained responses that emanate downward
to the individual (Friedman, 2002). This idea led Friedman to issue a strong warning when he
wrote about a society putting social justice, political correctness, and equalized outputs ahead of
freedom, the citizens will no longer be free while being mired in class warfare. To accentuate this
point even further, King (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998) used Lord Acton’s dictum as
warning for humanity, King preached about the consequences of an unscrupulous leader taking
control of an intrusive central planning system, individual development will cease to be an option
for the masses. Maslow (1971) surmised that if total anarchy or total control dominated the
individual’s existence, then it forced the individual to be more concerned about surviving and
anxious about fulfilling lower level needs; consequently, individual development suffers.
Despite the lessons of history as laid out by Friedman (2002), many individuals question
the free market’s potential because of those who peddle ignorance and hate have lead them
astray. To compound the disinformation, Weber (1958) warned that the multitude of societal
conveniences that comes with successful human and societal development allow apathy and
complacency to set in. As a result, Friedman (Friedman & Friedman, 1980) believed that
disinformation, apathy, and complacency allow individuals to believe that because they exist,
they are entitled to a certain amount of equality of outcome. In other words, some individuals

41. 34
believe it is their right to have their lower level needs provided for by the state and it is a social
injustice for them to earn what so many already have (Friedman, 2002). As noted previously,
providing unearned resources to individuals using the equality of outcome concept does nothing
but destroy individual development potential. However, developed societies continue to ignore
Friedman’s (2002) warning at their own risk.
Since class warfare begets class warfare, Friedman (2002) expressed concern about
welfare programs that were originally created from compassion, have become either punitive in
nature to productive members or created a system of dependency that robs a potentially
productive individual of incentive and creativity to develop. Those trapped in the welfare system
have been required to sell their dignity and potential to develop little by little for a pittance at a
time (King, 1986). As stated by Friedman (2002), any centralized socio-economic system does
not help those who have little; it only punishes people who want to do more with their life while
posing as aid to those with little or nothing. Friedman continued by suggesting welfare or
government aid needs to have societal agreement; furthermore, the delivery of any aid has to be
done in a manner that helps an individual out of a temporary predicament not as a long-term
subsidy without any specific goals that leads to self-sufficiency. Maslow (1971) and King (1986)
echoed this concern as well.
According to Friedman (2002), the government’s involvement in day-to-day activities of
individuals has had a negative effect on the free-market. It was alarming to Friedman that free
people have knowingly allowed the government to infringe upon their economic freedom and
their potential to develop. In addition, re-distribution of wealth means minority groups end up
fighting amongst each other for dwindling resources, which only generates more envy, class
warfare, and an unproductive dysfunctional society that guides its citizen down the road to

42. 35
becoming indentured servants (Friedman & Friedman, 1980). King (1986) and Maslow’s (1971)
thoughts had a similar outcome, as hate begets hate, class warfare begets class warfare; the
biggest loser will be individual freedom and development. In order for free markets and
economic freedom to occur, government must be limited. In turn, an increase in economic
freedom with limited government promotes true political freedom necessary for the individual to
develop as they see fit (Friedman, 2002).
Another point made by Friedman (2002) concerned the government having two primary
roles, protect individual freedom from enemies abroad and to protect freedom by ensuring fair
play amongst all of its citizens. King (1981) elaborated by noting that if government worked to
ensure fair play, government works in a positive manner to stop anarchy and domination from
occurring in a free market. To make this work properly, Friedman (2002) advocated that a
functioning republic required an educated citizenry operating with well-understood social and
moral expectations. Weber (1958) added clarification in noting a free society does not want laws
and regulations to cover every possible human interaction hence the need for moral development.
According to King (1981), the alternative to well-understood social and moral expectations was
the “social evils” (p. 134) of Marxism, where social evils equates to Maslow’s (1971) concept of
ignorance. As a result, ignorance causes humanity to make conscious decisions that leads them
down a path to “psychological fatalism” (King, p. 134). King would go on to say that fatalism
was the ultimate goal of the weak willed and weak minded that believe in the variants of
Marxism. Friedman (2002) offered one last warning as it related to the government’s role, an
over-reaching government that failed to maintain fair play was no better than the central planning
entities behind socialist and communist states. As a result, social evils, ignorance, an over
reaching government, Marxism, and fatalism causes individuals to de-evolve (King, 1981). To

43. 36
counter the dire future of fatalism, a society that endorses individual responsibility and economic
freedom wrapped in positive social expectations provides the best chance for true individual
development.
Conclusion
In closing the breadth portion of this paper, the concepts presented have provided a
historically successful path to true individual development where the balance of choice resides
with the individual. The first and most important point, until the nineteenth century, freedom has
always included both political and economic freedom (Friedman, 2002). This freedom directly
relates to the individual being able to maximize their development as they so chose. Based on
various morals, values, and ethics, societal expectations of a free society, this combination
provides the moral foundation to allow a group of individuals to cooperate and work together in
the most efficient manner to satisfy their most basic needs (Bradford & Winslow, 1966). Societal
expectations as expressed in this paper included a person having the freedom to search for a
calling (Weber, 1958). A calling was determined to be the engine of individual development. In
reference to I.R.’s letter of advice, those five simple points force the individual to look inward to
their own path of salvation and development (Bradford & Winslow, 1966). The basis of all
individual development starts with a well-defined understanding of one’s self (Bradford &
Winslow). Weber’s concept of a calling and I.R.’s five points were comparable to Maslow’s
(1943) lower needs and Kohlberg’s (1981) first three stages of development.
King’s (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998) concept of agape, based on neighborly
love, was comparable to the conformity, loving, and belonging stage of both Kohlberg (1981)
and Maslow (1943). King (1988) also presented a potential development process that
incorporates agape and takes the individual from the lowest levels of development to the highest.

44. 37
King (1988) described this individual development process as the three dimensions of a complete
life and it was similar in nature to both Kohlberg’s and Maslow’s human development processes.
Throughout the process of individual development, there were two critical ingredients
necessary to allow the individual to develop as they saw fit. As defined by Friedman (2002), the
concepts of individual responsibility and a free market allow the individual to maximize their
potential to reach the highest development stages. When individual responsibility and the free
market concepts include Kohlberg’s (1981) theories on moral development, social expectations
develop and the cycle described has proven to be historically successful as defined by Friedman
(2002). Even though the concept of a free market is societal, it was necessary to include it since
the highest levels of development require the individual to work within a societal construct
(Kohlberg, 1981).
Marxism was another societal concept included, because it and its variants were the
alternative to a free market. As discussed, if Marxist concepts were implemented, bureaucratic
mandates would force the individual into the obedience and punishment orientation (Kohlberg,
1981). As resources become less available to the masses, the individual will regress to Maslow’s
(1943) lower needs as they strive to survive. In the depth portion of this KAM, the evaluation of
current literature will be using moral self-leadership as defined by the societal expectations noted
in the breadth. In addition, the idea behind the depth is to provide an enlightened response to
theories and concepts discussed in the breadth.

45. 38
Depth
AMDS 8222 Leadership in Human Development
Annotated Bibliography
Chisholm, R. (2007). The ferocious morality of Niccolo Machiavelli. Instituto de Estudos
Avançados da Universidade de São Paulo. Retrieved September 14, 2009 from
http://www.iea.usp.br/english/articles/chisholmmachiavelli.pdf
Chisholm examined the blunt political power philosophies of Machiavelli to find
constructs of morality. A critical topic analyzed by Chisholm was Machiavelli’s concept of virtù
which had very little to do with the modern concept of virtue since it was based on the simple
“Greek idea of arete” that required a leader to search out the “excellence of a thing” (¶ 7). This
search of excellence was how Machiavelli evaluated various leaders found in his work called The
Prince. Chisholm used virtù to ascertain the greatest qualities of a leader, those were a self-less
dedication to the state and great leaders must exhibit immense ambition that somehow redefines
the state or leads to a great conquest.
The author took a unique look at Machiavelli’s work and through the chaos found what
Chisholm called the “effectual morality” (¶ 29) of leadership. The author provided an expanded
view of Machiavelli’s theories on leadership, which required the reader to re-evaluate what
Machiavelli had to offer in regards to societal expectations. Evidently, the leader has two sets of
moral codes, the one for the public to adhere to and admire, and another set, which allowed the
leader to use every means at his or her disposal to attain power and shape it to his or her will.
Chisholm’s perspective helped explain why King viewed Machiavelli’s political philosophy as a
philosophy idolized by socialistic beliefs built on hate.

46. 39
The value of this piece was that it offered the antithetical perspective to King’s (1986)
beliefs concerning leadership and morality. However, various authors in the breadth would view
the expectation that a leader, as well as the people, should be dedicated to the state as a positive
(Chisholm, 2007). As the state develops, so does the individual. Another positive leadership
development trait noted by Chisholm was a Machiavellian belief that a braggadocios behavior
built on an exaggerated reputation was vulgar. Negatives taken include the expectation that a
leader was to have enough ambition to re-shape a society after they attain power in order to fulfill
their pursuit of excellence or as Machiavelli would define as virtù. The concept of virtù was in
line with Weber’s concept of a calling (Chisholm); however, the difference between the two was
substantial since Machiavelli’s pursuit of excellence came at the expense of other individuals’
development potential. Secular beliefs of Marxism and its variants have always elevated the
needs of the central authority over the demands of the people. Ultimately, Machiavelli promoted
controlled narcissism. As Maslow (1971) would attest that this limited the leader’s moral
development since the result of any action justified the means. In addition, as King noted total
power corrupts (as cited by Carson & Holloran, 1998), this would hinder the development of
those who followed such a leader.
Courpasson, D. & Dany, F. (2003). Indifference or obedience? Business firms as democratic
hybrids. Organization Studies. Organization Studies, 24; 1231-1260. doi:
10.1177/01708406030248001.
The authors acknowledged there is a void between the rule of law and the rules that a
society needs to serve its numerous interests. To fill the void, the authors analyzed case studies to
determine the most effective organizational and sociological approaches. They surmised that a
need exists to connect obedience to a centrally controlling entity. Since this controlling authority

47. 40
had the power and knowledge, the authors questioned if it was possible that we as individuals
would “witness the rebirth of a kind of ambivalent” dictator (p. 1257). Other notable topics
included the concept that authority was a social process and that a political or business entity can
manipulate an individual’s indifference to achieve goals with little resistance.
Even though obedience was a part of the process in Kohlberg (1981) and Maslow’s
(1943) development paths, obedience was not the final stage of development. King (1986) would
find it disturbing that the authors seemed excited about promoting obedience within the political
and business related realms in a free society as a good thing. Courpasson and Dany (2003)
suggested that if employees were subservient and self-defecating as dutiful slaves waiting on
orders from upper management, it would lead to higher pay, bonuses, job satisfaction, the
expectation of possible promotion, and mutually benefiting from the company’s success were the
typical reasons why individuals should prescribe to this line of thinking. Individual development
would be severely restricted since the expectation is for the individual to perform duties in the
early stages of development. Most individuals in a free society would not classify themselves as
indentured servants to the community. The authors’ indifference towards the subjects of a
community suggested they might agree with Machiavelli’s description of the populace as being
vulgar (Chisholm, 2007).
Courpasson and Dany’s (2003) contribution to human development, morality, and
leadership appears to generate negative consequences. First, the authors implied that they were
ways to coerce subordinates into achieving the goals of the ambivalent dictator. Instead of
leading by inspiring, the authors suggested using indifference as a tool to achieve less than
desirable objectives. In addition, the authors seemed ecstatic at the thought of authoritarian rule
and centralized power with in politics and business. Friedman (2002) would agree with the